asked the Secretary of State for War if he will take the necessary steps to secure that notification is given by the competent Army authorities to the Press of the time and place of pending courts-martial.

Arrangements have been made for notice of forthcoming Army courts-martial to be posted at, or near, the headquarters at which they are convened.

Why were not these arrangements made previously by the Army authorities, since they have been made by the two other Services?

I should have to have notice of that question as it goes into the past, but I quite agree that they should be made now.

Does my right hon. Friend's answer indicate a definite change of policy in this matter, since there has been a good deal of doubt and even distortion about it?

It means a change of procedure, at any rate.

asked the Secretary of State for War the acreage of land held on requisition by his Department.

asked the Secretary of State for War the total acreage of land now occupied by his Department in Great Britain.

On 31st March, 1950, the War Department held some 167,000 acres on requisition. A further 343,000 acres were owned or leased, making a total of 510,000 acres. In addition, the Department, under Defence Regulation 52, had the right to use without permanent occupation 255,000 acres.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this represents any appreciable reduction in the last 12 months, and is he satisfied that the machinery for keeping this matter under review is working as searchingly and as powerfully as it ought to be?

It represents a reduction of about 9 per cent. since last October, and it is steadily coming down. After all, it has come down by over 10 million acres, or 93 per cent. since the war.

Has the Minister thought of growing groundnuts on some of this land?

Can my right hon. Friend say how much of the land still held by the War Office was requisioned as early as the First World War?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many persons are in receipt of payments in respect of land held on requisition by his Department.

On 31st March, 1950, the War Department held some 5,350 separate requisitions. Since two or more requisitions are often held from one owner, the number of persons receiving payments would have been considerably less. I regret that exact figures are not readily available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, particularly among small owners some hardship is being experienced in view of the difficulty of getting claims reviewed, and will he sympathetically bear in mind the claims of small people who are trying to get their land back, particularly for agricultural purposes?

I realise the urgency of that. We are often met by the conflicting claims of other families who have "squatted" or come in on other tenancies of some kind, and we have to evict them in order to derequisition. The two claims often conflict.

In cases where there is no intention of giving up such land as has been requisitioned, will the claims of the owners who have been dispossessed of their land be paid?

We shall, of course, have to make financial arrangements in those cases.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an estimate of the total extra cost that would result from the grant of an annuity to all those now registered for the award of the Meritorious Service Medal.

About £75,000 a year.

asked the Secretary of State for War why since August, 1949, the charge levied upon the Solent Home Guard Rifle Club, of Swanwick, Hampshire, for the use of the Browndown range has been increased from 1s. per head to between £6 and £10 for each occasion.

The Solent Home Guard Rifle Club are still charged 1s. per member per year for the use of Browndown range. Additional charges are raised when the use of ranges by civilian rifle clubs entails additional expense such as the payment of overtime to range wardens or look-outs employed beyond their normal hours. I understand, however, that only one such charge has been raised against the Solent Home Guard Rifle Club and that this charge was cancelled when it was ascertained that a cadet unit had been using the range at the same time.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is somewhat exorbitant to charge the Solent Home Guard Rifle Club large sums in terms of pounds for services which they are willing to carry out when they are on at weekends or at other convenient times?

None of these additional charges has actually been made on the rifle club. If the club wish to put up a proposition as to when they can undertake these extra duties and so obviate the expense I am sure it can be considered.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept some approach from me on the subject?

Certainly, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for War if the war-time Army selection procedure is being used with a view to National Servicemen being allotted to duties most fitted to their civilian training and personal ability.

The basic war-time Army selection procedure is still in partial operation, although some modifications have been made to suit peace-time conditions.

Does my right hon. Friend consider it important that, so far as possible, these young men should continue in their civilian trades when called up for National Service, so that they do not lose their craft training, and if I can give him specific examples of this not happening, will he have a look at them?

Certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to increase the numbers of Regulars in the Army.

asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to make good the deficiency of Regular personnel in the Army.

Terms of service have now been made more flexible. They cater specifically for the soldier who wishes to obtain trade union recognition for a skill acquired during his service and for the probable requirements of National Service men. In addition, a soldier may now extend his period of colour service at any time after his first year. Further variations of engagements are under consideration.

Every effort is being made to ensure that service in the Army does not prejudice a soldier's chance of employment on return to civil life and over a hundred trades have received trade union recognition. Measures have been taken to increase the provision of married quarters at home and abroad. Other steps to improve conditions of service were described in a reply given by my predecessor on 25th October, 1949.

In the field of publicity, efforts are being made through B.B.C. broadcasts, films and newspapers, to reach the widest possible recruiting field, and steps are being taken, within the limits imposed by normal duties, to arrange marches, displays and similar events.

In addition a full examination is at present being carried out in regard to the career structure and prospects within the Army with the object of providing a more attractive and possibly longer career.

But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of the things to which he has just referred have been in operation for some time and that, even though they have been in operation, the number of recruits has tended to dwindle, not to increase? Is it not about time that he completed his inquiry into the career and, particularly, the pay structure of the Army?

That depends, of course, not only on my Department. Other Services and other Departments have to be consulted on that matter.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the organisation, the training and the efficiency of the Army depend largely on an adequate supply of Regular personnel, and does he really consider that the steps he has outlined will be sufficient largely to increase the number enlisting?

No, I was careful to say that further steps are in contemplation, and I mentioned some of them, but I agree with the general proposition that the efficiency of the Army depends largely on an adequate Regular content.

May I ask the Minister whether there has been any substantial increase in the number of recruits during the last fortnight?

I cannot say.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the two most effective measures would be, first, an increase in pay, and secondly, preference for employment after leaving the Service in some Government organisation, such as the Post Office?

I would not like to set a priority. There are many things that are important. Married quarters, for example, come high on the priority list.

Is my right hon. Friend under the impression that the success of the American recruiting scheme is due to pay conditions only?

I would not know enough about it to say.

Is the Secretary of State aware that during the past two years the trend has been for a gradual decrease in the number of Regulars, that recruiting is not making good this wastage, that if this trend continues the right hon. Gentleman will be in an extremely serious position shortly, that the matter has been under consideration for two years and that no effective steps have been taken?

I could not agree that no steps have been taken—

No effective steps.

A number of steps have been taken, but we are concerned over the trend of Regular recruiting.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow)? Is it not about time that the War Office were in the closest touch with conditions of recruiting, and so on, in America, and ought he not to be severely influenced by the experience that they have had?

asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent military training is prejudiced by the employment of troops at Smithfield market or in the London docks; and whether he will consider the grant of a special bonus to troops whilst they are so eploved.

The employment of troops at Smithfield market has not caused grave interference with military training. Its principal effect has been to hold up the training of drivers. No special bonus will be granted to the troops involved, who are on military duty.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this duty is not only an extra to any work which normally ought to be undertaken by these troops, but is also an unpopular duty? Does he not consider, in view of the fact that it is extremely well carried out, that some recognition ought to be given to these men?

We have discussed the question of a bonus for this kind of employment on several occasions before. We do not think it would be appropriate to make it, but I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the troops have carried out these duties exceedingly well.

Can the Minister say, in the event of any of these troops being killed or injured by Communist agitators, that they will enjoy full pension rights.

"In the event" is purely hypothetical.

Surely the Minister will agree that these constant interruptions of military training are serious and regrettable at the present time?

They are certainly regrettable. Naturally we at the War Office dislike any interruption of military training, but it would not be true to say that the work in connection with this dispute so far—and I hope we are near the end of it—has gravely interfered with training.

Can the Minister say whether the frequent use of troops in industrial disputes may have a prejudicial effect upon recruiting?

I do not think so.

asked the Secretary of State for War what collective training of units and formations is to be carried out this year in the United Kingdom and Germany, respectively.

Collective training is planned to take place in the United Kingdom on a larger scale than, and in Germany on the same general scale as, last year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of what the scale of collective training is to be in the United Kingdom, in view of the fact that he has merely compared this with last year, when there was practically none?

No, Sir, I do not think it would be true to say that, but I think it is true that our major activities in this field will again be in Germany. I could not, however—certainly not without notice, and with notice only to a somewhat limited degree—give details of the training.

Is there to be a Western Union exercise in Germany or will it be purely B.A.O.R.?

I could not say that without notice.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of his previous reply, whether there is to be any training at brigade level, even in Great Britain?

I do not think I can go into details this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for War what uniform grant is made to a National Service officer at the start of his part-time service who is posted to a Territorial Army unit which wears a different uniform to that worn by the Regular Army unit in which he had been serving; and whether the same rule applies to a National Service officer who volunteers for a particular Territorial Army unit.

In each case reasonable and necessary expenditure on essential alterations and additions to the uniform would be refunded.

asked the Secretary of State for War if a decision can now be announced as to the future position of the 387 Field Regiment Royal Artillery, Territorial Army, in view of the fact that the regiment is proceeding to camp on 15th July and the uncertainty which has arisen is becoming detrimental to its well-being.

Yes, Sir. This field regiment will be amalgamated with the 299 Field Regiment Royal Artillery, Territorial Army. The regimental headquarters of the amalgamated regiment will be located in Buckinghamshire.

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of his letter, dated 29th June, to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield; and why, reversing his decision a second time, he has now decided that the provision of information in Form L. 39 gives no right to professional costs even of a substantiated claim.

Yes, Sir. L. 39 claimants have not, and never have had, the right to claim fees. The decision to make ex gratia payments towards fees in substantiated L. 39 claims has not been altered.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the statement in his letter goes back on the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary on 25th May when he said that fees in respect of substantiated claims would be paid, and would he also agree that in his letter he has said that the Central Land Board are merely prepared to consider making ex gratia payments, which is surely a very different matter?

No, Sir. The hon. Baronet has now asked me four Parliamentary Questions on this form, he has had one Adjournment Debate, and he has received a letter from me. If it is not clear now, I do not hope I can make the position clearer by going on.

Will there not be a very heavy burden on public funds if every claim is to be swollen automatically by professional fees; would this not lead to heavy Income Tax payments by the consultants, and is it not a clear example of "jobs for the boys"?

Will not the Minister say whether the position as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary holds good, that where claimants have to incur professional fees in filling in their L.39 and subsequently their claim is not excluded by the de minimis principle, they will then get their contribution to those fees?

I think this is very clear, but I will try once more to make it clearer still. The only claimants who have a right to claim a contribution towards fees are those who provided professional valuations by 31st October, 1949, and whose claims are not de minimis. The Board have at no time conceded the right to claim a contribution in substanitated L.39 cases. Payment in these cases will be ex gratia.

Will the Minister look again at the statement made in the Adjournment Debate on 25th May by the Parliamentary Secretary, where it was clearly said that the L.39 forms will be admissible for payment in substantiated cases; and is not this a case of order, counter-order, and disorder?

No, Sir, it is nothing of the kind. I repeat: payments in these cases will be made in certain instances, but they will be ex gratia. I could not make it any clearer if I repeated it six times more.

Would the right hon. Gentleman make it a little clearer how he defines in this context the term "ex gratia"? Is it not a fact that these payments are not in any case provided for by Statute? Would the Minister be a little more clear as to where the line of demarcation comes?

The hon. Member himself is a lawyer. "Ex gratia" is a Latin term and means, as the hon. Member knows, that it is paid without legal compulsion and is a matter of grace—"gratia"—grace.

On a point of order. As the statement which has now been made by the right hon. Gentleman is a repudiation of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary on 25th May, I shall raise the matter again at the next opportunity.

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning which professional organisations were consulted, and when, concerning the issue by the Central Land Board of Form L. 39 and the costs of its completion; which organisations approved the contents of the form; which organisations were informed that costs would be paid; which informed that costs would not be paid; and when was a decision publicly announced.

As the answer is very long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps he is proposing to take to clarify the position concerning the legality of the flying of flags of their own design by business houses, commercial firms, clubs. religious, professional, sporting and other bodies and associations about which there is now uncertainty.

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware that certain local authorities are seeking, under powers conferred upon them by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the London Building Act, 1930, to prevent owners from flying flags on their properties; and whether he will take steps to prevent such actions.

The hon. Members for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and Wimbledon (Mr. Black) recently complained to me that the St. Marylebone Borough Council were ordering certain firms to haul down flags which, in one case, the firm has flown for 25 years, and, in another case, for 20 years, without it ever having been suggested that their action was illegal. As the hon. Member for St. Marylebone pointed out, the attitude adopted by the St. Marylebone Borough Council might well lead to an order to the M.C.C. not to fly their flag at Lords.

This action by the St. Marylebone Borough Council seemed to me to be silly and uncalled for, and I wrote to them and also to the London County Council, who have default powers in such matters, strongly advising them to discontinue such action. The London County Council replied that they were in general agreement with me and did not intend to use their default powers. The St. Marylebone Borough Council, however, seem inclined to persist.

I am advised that the law, in this case the London Building Acts, is not altogether clear as to the powers of local authorities in London to forbid the flying of flags. I am further advised that it would be possible, by an Order in Council, to restrict, in this respect, the operation of the London Building Acts. But this would be a most cumbrous procedure and I hope I shall not be forced to consider it.

I am sure that the public would prefer that we should put out more flags so as to brighten London, rather than go about grimly hauling them down. I am asking representatives of the London County Council and the St. Marylebone Borough Council to meet officers of my Department to discuss this question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the action of the St. Marylebone Borough Council took place only because the London County Council pointed out to them that they were not carrying out their duties under the Acts? I think that that ought to be made quite clear.

This is denied. I have, naturally, investigated this suggestion and the L.C.C. tell me they were not consulted; there was no question of giving instructions. It appears that at some very low level some district surveyor seems to have made some foolish statement on the telephone. I am surprised that the St. Marylebone Borough Council did not carry it up a little higher before acting.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to the two Questions will afford a very great deal of satisfaction and pleasure to a very large number of people?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in resisting this austerity-mindedness of the St. Marylebone Borough Council, he has the support of the mass of Londoners, who would like to see him encourage all additions to the brightness and festivity of London. particularly during the Festival of Britain?

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what houses have been purchased and/or rented, and at what prices, by the various new town development corporations for private occupation by members of their staffs; and what rents are being charged in each case.

This is a matter of detailed administration, which I am content to leave to the development corporations. But economic rents are fixed for all such houses by the district valuer.

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why the rents, exclusive of rates, for houses with the same number of rooms vary so widely both from one new town to another, and also within certain new towns.

Because these houses are of different designs and sizes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that despite the variety in the houses, the rents being charged in some new towns are excessively high, and that unless attempts are made to reduce building costs many people may be discouraged from going to the new towns?

There is no discouragement. There are long queues for houses in the new towns. I have visited most of them now. and people are only too delighted to get good houses in good surroundings.

At high rents?

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why he is charging £15 development charge on a small plot of ground presented to the Solent Home Guard Rifle Club, of Swanwick, Hampshire, for use as a miniature rifle range.

This assessment was made by the Central Land Board and agreed by the parties.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the land was donated and the labour in converting it into a range is free and done by the club members, this charge is rather a very heavy impost on the club, bearing in mind that it is a patriotic and not a luxury organisation?

I naturally have sympathy with a case of this kind. This, however. is what is laid down by law, and I understand that both parties concerned have agreed and the payment has in fact been made.

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning on what grounds he considers the Brownwich and Hook Park areas of the Fareham urban district suitable for development as an oil refinery, together with its uninhabitable surrounding zone, and the residential area for 7,000 people connected with it; and what plans he has made for the new township involved with its necessary public services.

His Majesty's Government have approved this project in principle since they were advised that this locality offers convenient access by water for large tankers and is well placed for the main markets. It would cost much less to build and operate a refinery there than elsewhere. Most of the labour will be drawn from neighbouring towns and there is no intention of creating a new township.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the refinery is situated on the site mentioned, the main part of the fruit-growing, and especially the strawberry-growing, areas in Hampshire will be dead to leeward of this refinery and that there may well be a covering of oil which will cause the collapse of the strawberry-growing industry?

That would, of course, be a matter of which special account ought to be taken. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars on the lines of what he has just said, I will carefully go into the question, but this matter has been examined most carefully in consultation by a number of Government Departments.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if this project is carried out the whole of the water of the Solent will have a film of oil? Does he also realise that the tide will carry that oil up the Hamble river, which will do immense damage to the Hamble river and surroundings as a yachting centre?

I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), as to the hon. and gallant Member who asked the Question, that if they can give some particular evidence against this site I will go into it, but the evidence in favour of the site is very strong.

asked the Minister of National Insurance why, in House of Commons Paper 61. Statement VII, the expression "cost price" is employed as identical with "market value" at 5th July, 1948, in respect of the securities of the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund, when the value upon the said date was £12,867,972 below the price originally paid by the absorbed funds.

I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 14 of the document in question, where it is explained that the figures of cost price shown in Statement VII represent, in most cases, the price at which the investments were taken over by the Reserve Fund The exceptions were certain investments purchased during the period of account.

Would the right hon. Lady agree that if it means anything at all, the expression "cost price" means the price paid by the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund for these securities; and was anything in fact paid?

I think that if the hon. Baronet asks the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, he will tell the hon. Baronet that we gave an undertaking to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that this figure would be shown in this case as cost price.

asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) on what grounds an application for health benefit in respect of the insured person and his wife is treated as two separate applications;

(2) why insurance benefit in respect of an insured person's wife is refused on the grounds that the insured person inadvertently omits to claim on behalf of her at the time when the application for benefit is made.

Where a claim is made for benefit for a dependant, certain particulars are required which are not needed for the man's own claim, which can be decided without waiting for this information. As the Regulations now allow a month from the date of the main claim in which to claim dependency increases, any inadvertent omission to claim will be brought to the man's notice in good time and difficulties of this kind should no longer occur.

The right hon. Lady said that any original omission will be brought to the man's notice, but in previous correspondence she said that no records were kept in the local offices; how does she propose that such an omission can now be brought to the man's notice?

The hon. Member must have misunderstood my letter. Of course, we have records. The man has to make a claim in the first place and has to tell us who the dependants are. Now we have extended the time limit to a length which will give us ample opportunity to warn him that, if necessary, he should give us further details.

If a man has not made a claim for his dependants or mentioned his dependants, surely the fact that he has omitted to do so should not be taken to indicate that he does not mean to make a claim for his dependants?

asked the Minister of National Insurance, as administrative expenses in connection with the Industrial Injuries Fund for the period 5th July, 1948, to 31st March, 1949, amounted to £2,694,458 against payments of £5,674,921, whether she proposes to make any changes in the administrative arrangements.

The administrative expenses in the accounts of the Industrial Injuries Fund represented a provisional calculation. The actual figure, excluding preliminary expenses of £450,000, was £1,490,000. The ratio between administrative cost and benefit is bound to be high in the initial stages of a scheme of this kind because expenditure on disablement pensions is cumulative and will not reach full extent for several years.

Will the right hon. Lady say what was the estimated cost of administration when this scheme was first introduced?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question.

asked the Minister of National Insurance if she is aware of the inequality in the treatment of those who became widows before and after the passing of the National Insurance Act; and what steps she proposes to take to remove this.

Widows pensioned under the old scheme whose circumstances on 5th July, 1948, enabled the new conditions to be applied to them were given the appropriate widow's benefit of the new scheme and such differences as still exist flow directly from the entirely different basis of the new provisions. They were fully considered by Parliament at the time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that two women can become widows under identical circumstances; and one can receive 26s. a week and the other 10s. a week because there are one or two days between the deaths of their husbands?

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that when a new Act of Parliament is introduced which has an actuarial basis different from the previous Act, it is very difficult to assimilate the two, and it would be quite wrong to raid the present Fund in the interests of those under the other Act. It would throw it out of balance.

asked the Minister of National Insurance how many widows are now in receipt of 10s. weekly pension; how many are receiving the full 26s.; and what would be the cost of increasing the amount to the latter figure so that there would be a uniform payment for all widows.

The immediate annual cost of increasing the rate of pension for all widows to 26s. a week would be about £10 million. There are about 204,000 widows under 60 entitled to benefits of 26s. or more, and 248,000 in receipt of 10s. pensions, of whom the great majority are working.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling of injustice suffered by the 248,000 who are receiving 10s. as against those who are receiving 26s.?

asked the Minister of National Insurance how many persons have been dismissed from her Blackpool office on grounds of redundancy; and how many on grounds of inefficiency since 1st January, 1950.

Since 1st January of this year 122 temporary clerks, comprising 47 employed full-time and 75 part-time, have been discharged as redundant because of the transfer of their work to Newcastle. During this period six temporary clerks have been discharged on grounds of inefficiency.

Will the right hon. Lady do all she can to see that there is no mistake between these two grounds on which temporary staff can be discharged?

I want to reassure the hon. Member. I hope he will come to my Department shortly so that we can go into the details of this matter. We do everything possible to give these people a chance and to see whether they can do their job, but if they cannot, they have to be discharged on grounds of inefficiency.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to secure for those workers affected by the decision to close down the Ministry of Supply steel-making plants at Monk Bridge and Paisley similar employment near their present homes.

I understand that these steel-making plants will not close until the end of the year. The normal machinery of the employment exchange service will be available to assist workers who register to obtain alternative employment.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men are affected in each of those cases?

No, not without notice, but I can say that we do not experience any difficulty in finding alternative employment for the bulk of the men.

asked the Minister of Labour what measures he proposes to take to overcome unemployment in the public service vehicle industry, resulting from a reduction in the annual production rate of public service vehicles for the home market.

I am not aware that the public service vehicle industry is suffering from unemployment. The normal machinery of the employment exchange service is, of course, available for any workers who register for employment.

Is the Minister aware that the annual production rate has already been reduced from 11,000 to 8,000 and that a great many will be affected if there is a further reduction from that figure?

There might be a reduction in that particular branch of the industry, but we see no real difficulty in placing them in alternative employment.

asked the Minister of Labour at what date the last trainee passed through the Government training centre at Paulsgrove, Portsmouth; and how long the centre remained open in order to train 400 trainees.

This centre was opened in February, 1947, and training ceased there on 30th January, 1950, when the remaining classes were transferred to other centres.

Does the Minister realise that £177,000 was spent to train 400 trainees, which represents £400 per trainee? Is not that one way in which hon. Members opposite could save a bit of money?

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the number was 436, not 400? That is not a very material point. But is he aware also that the Government still own the building and that the cost of it should not be placed on the number of people trained there?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the public inquiry into the marketing scheme for wool held in Edinburgh in March will be published.

Reports of public inquiries into schemes submitted for approval under the Agricultural Marketing Acts are confidential to the Ministers concerned and accordingly are not published.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that the inquiry was held in public? Why should not the commissioner's report be made public?

Surely there is a great difference between the actual inquiry and the report of the commissioner to the Secretary of State. The Statute does not provide for the reports to be published and they never have been.

Have the organisations interested in the scheme not yet had copies of the report?

Now that the marketing scheme is before the House, surely it is incredible that we should not be informed of the result of the inquiry?

The Secretary of State, of course, does not prevent hon. Members getting to know what took place when the inquiry was held, but what they cannot get to know is what was reported to the Secretary of State as to what he should do about it.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he would publish the reports of the public inquiries both into the Shetland wool scheme and the United Kingdom scheme, it would greatly assist the producers concerned to make up their minds between the two schemes?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has rejected the proposals made by the Teachers' Housing Society, Ltd., Edinburgh, for the building of new houses and the subdivision of existing houses for the benefit of members of the society.

My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider proposals from this or any other housing association in so far as such proposals relate to cases clearly falling within the categories described in his statement of 29th March.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he now proposes to take any special steps to alleviate the situation in Shetland consequent upon the comparatively high rate of unemployment and the poor market for Shetland wool.

As stated in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 4th April last, unemployment in Shetland is largely seasonal and casual. Indeed, the number of persons registered as unemployed in June was about one-half of the number in March. I hope that the scheme of assistance for the white fish industry announced last week may have further beneficial effects. In addition a number of public works including road schemes and pier improvements, are being carried out or are planned with assistance from Government funds.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that while the situation may be better, unemployment in Shetland is still relatively high, and when he comes to implement the policy outlined in the White Paper will he pay special attention to the difficulties facing Shetland?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what cases, and for what purposes, the pound sterling is now valued at three dollars.

None that I am aware of.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recall that on 23rd May last, in reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), he said that the tourist allowance for France comprised a valuation of £50 as the broad equivalent of 150 American dollars? Does he still adhere to that?

Yes, I certainly do. I think that £53 11s. 5d. is the broad equivalent of 150 dollars.

Does the Chancellor not admit that he is mulcting the tourist to the tune of nearly £3 10s. in this way?

No.

Does inaccuracy to the tune of 7 per cent. represent the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman handles the nation's finances?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether undistributed post-war credits are being retained in a separate fund.

No, Sir. The law governing the existing repayments provides for them to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recall that Parliament established these post-war credits as a nest-egg for the taxpayer? Why is the egg not in the nest?

Because the nest is the Consolidated Fund, which holds all the eggs.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that if and when post-war credits are repaid, the people receiving them will have to be taxed in order to pay themselves?

We always have to raise the money by taxation if we are to pay out.

On a point of order. In view of the gravity of the disclosure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax is payable on weed-killers, with particular reference to those with a petroleum ingredient.

Light hydrocarbon oil is subject to Customs Duty at the rate of 1s. 6d. a gallon or Excise Duty at 9d. a gallon, whether it is to be used as an ingredient of weed-killer or for other purposes. It is impossible to say what duty charges would be payable on weed-killers containing other ingredients in the absence of precise details of their composition. Weed-killers are not subject to Purchase Tax.

Ought weedkillers to be used at all? Is not the right remedy, according to the colleague of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, classes on the rule of law?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual yield from Purchase Tax on building regulation posters required to be erected in factories; and if he will discontinue the application of this tax to articles which the Government requires the taxpayer to buy.

About £100 a year. It would not be feasible to exempt from tax all articles which the public buy for fulfilment of statutory obligations, but I will see if anything can be done about these posters and will write to the hon. Member in due course.

Apart from the question of these posters, does not the Chancellor agree that the principle of requiring taxpayers by law to buy something upon which the Government places a tax, is entirely wrong?

No, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for war damage to dwelling-houses have been rejected to the latest convenient date.

I regret that this information is not available.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Government's policy on this matter is therefore based on abysmal ignorance of the facts?

No, it is not based on abysmal ignorance of the facts, but this fact is not available.

When the Chancellor says that it is not available, is it because he does not wish to disclose this information to the House or because the War Damage Commission have not the necessary information?

Had the hon. and gallant Member had a little more knowledge of the usual courtesies of Question Time, he would not have asked that supplementary question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the continually increasing cost of travel, he will permit fares for travel to and from work to be allowed against Income Tax as a business expense.

No, Sir.

Is the Chancellor aware that the present high rates of taxation and fares mean that fares are liable to take a fair proportion of a man's income after taxation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give further special consideration to this point, in view of the fact that the present housing shortage prevents people from seeking redress by going to live nearer to their work?

This matter has been carefully considered. I am afraid that nothing can be done.

Without asking the Chancellor to anticipate his Budget statement, might I ask him whether he would not go into this matter with great care before next year?

It has been gone into with great care.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many dollars he placed at the disposal of the German Government for the purchase of Swedish timber; and why this timber was not secured for the housing needs of this country.

None, Sir.

If I bring the Chancellor evidence from the timber importing trade that this has been done, will he give it consideration?

I am afraid it is impossible for the hon. Member to bring such evidence.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider publishing as a matter of urgency how much of the increase of 180 million gold and dollar reserves for the last quarter arises from the United Kingdom trade: and how much from the trade of the remainder of the sterling area.

The increase in our gold and dollar reserves was 438 million dollars in the second quarter of this year. I have nothing to add at present to my statement of 5th July, but the balance of payments White Paper will give the usual analysis in due course.

But since the Chancellor knows the White Paper may not be issued until about October, and that the real interest in this statement will then be lost, could an approximate figure be given to the House?

No, I am afraid it would not be possible to give an accurate approximation.

Does that figure include the figure of gold and dollar reserves held by the Exchange Equalisation Fund?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to protect the rights of British holders of the bonds of the City of Saarbrucken.

Discussions are proceed-in with the French Government.

Can the Chancellor say whether the French Government have made sterling available for the service of these bonds during the period for which they have been responsible?

I am afraid I cannot say without notice.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why British subjects living abroad who receive legacies are not allowed to invest the proceeds as they think fit during the period in which they are not allowed to transfer them abroad.

British subjects living abroad in sterling area and soft currency countries can invest the proceeds of legacies left them by residents of the United Kingdom in any sterling security. But those who have become permanent residents of hard currency countries are only permitted to transfer the first £500 of each bequest. The remaining proceeds are treated as blocked and according to the current rules for the investment of blocked funds they can be invested only in British Government securities with a life of not less than 10 years.

Can the Chancellor say why that condition should apply to permanent residents in foreign countries? Further, how would he define a permanent resident? A man might live abroad for 10 years and then come back.

It applies to permanent residents because it is only in such cases that the funds are blocked, and this is the regulation which applies to blocked funds. If the hon. Member desires a definition of "permanent resident" perhaps he will put a Question on the Order Paper.

Could not the Chancellor look at this matter again? Surely it is unfair that these beneficiaries should not be able to invest the proceeds of their legacies as they will, whether those funds are blocked or not?

One cannot give a preference to those people over other holders of blocked sterling.

But surely the blocking of sterling was originally only a war measure? Surely we have passed out of that sphere?

No. We are still blocking sterling.

Can these people invest their funds in 3 1/2 per cent. War Loan?

If that is a Government security with a life of not less than 10 years.